Osgood may retire following this season

[newfy 695]

Really people? Youre going to say Howard was burnt out and thats why we lost in the playoffs?

Get real, he was a rookie and s*** the bed with that Couture goal. Ozzie didn't deserve to start games and if he did we probably wouldn't have made playoffs at all.

Anyone remember the game against LA when Howard made like 51 saves and completely stole the game? Ozzie hasn't done something like that for over a year, its time to move on HOWARD IS THIS TEAMS FUTURE so get used to him playing a lot. He almost had Vezina worthy stats this year and was second in calder voting. He was top 5 in almost every single goal tending stat last season

[Opie 308]

There is nothing to answer in your what ifs, they are conjecture just as much as the bulls*** I threw out there.

Your scenarios are nothing more than monday morning quarterbacking and come of a little bitter as well that is what I get from your posts.

Let it go man, the team went from 9th to 5th in a very short time, due in large part to the successful decisions the head coach made!

[newfy 695]

There is nothing to answer in your what ifs, they are conjecture just as much as the bulls*** I threw out there.

Your scenarios are nothing more than monday morning quarterbacking and come of a little bitter as well that is what I get from your posts.

Let it go man, the team went from 9th to 5th in a very short time, due in large part to the successful decisions the head coach made!

Exactly, and the great play of our rookie goalie who was probably 4th in Vezina votes this year and was by far this teams MVP

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

There is nothing to answer in your what ifs, they are conjecture just as much as the bulls*** I threw out there.

Call them whatever you wish, but they were scenarios that the coach did not appear to address in the proper fashion. He put the team in a high risk situation, end of story.

Your scenarios are nothing more than monday morning quarterbacking and come of a little bitter as well that is what I get from your posts.

Because I believe Babcock to make a mistake and you are simply handwaving what I say away based on the fact "well it worked didn't it?"

Let it go man, the team went from 9th to 5th in a very short time, due in large part to the successful decisions the head coach made!

Let what go? I'm discussing a coach's decision in a discussion forum. And once again, the ends don't justify the means.

Wonderful bias based on hindsight. Other than the results, what do you have that implies that Babcock made the best decision at the time?

[Broken 16 381]

Call them whatever you wish, but they were scenarios that the coach did not appear to address in the proper fashion. He put the team in a high risk situation, end of story.

Because I believe Babcock to make a mistake and you are simply handwaving what I say away based on the fact "well it worked didn't it?"

Let what go? I'm discussing a coach's decision in a discussion forum. And once again, the ends don't justify the means.

Wonderful bias based on hindsight. Other than the results, what do you have that implies that Babcock made the best decision at the time?

So take the most important factor... the results, and eliminate them so as to help your argument. Brilliant. The results are everything and the only thing that matters. The goal last season, as stated by JImmy Dev himself, was to make the playoffs. Babcock did that. Hence, he made the best decisions.

Just because you and a few others are butt hurt because Osgood sat doesn't automatically mean Babcock made bad decisions. Just ones that you don't agree with.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Broken 16

[Buppy 1,720]

Call them whatever you wish, but they were scenarios that the coach did not appear to address in the proper fashion. He put the team in a high risk situation, end of story.

Because I believe Babcock to make a mistake and you are simply handwaving what I say away based on the fact "well it worked didn't it?"

Let what go? I'm discussing a coach's decision in a discussion forum. And once again, the ends don't justify the means.

Wonderful bias based on hindsight. Other than the results, what do you have that implies that Babcock made the best decision at the time?

I have trouble finding more than two extra starts Ozzie should have been given.

Though he was the backup by the start of December, he was still getting regular time until late in the month. Then Jimmy got really hot, and that plus the fact that the team wasn't in great position you can't really say it was a bad decision to skip one of two of Ozzie's regular starts. An NHL backup shouldn't suffer that much going 3 weeks without a start.

Then Jimmy had a poor start, Ozzie came off the bench and was worse, so Jimmy still got the next start, but he did get a couple more games in after Jimmy cooled off. But Ozzie played poorly in those games, so he missed his next start. I would have given him one more before the Olympic break, after the LA game when Jimmy played poorly. That's one.

After the Olympics, I thought Ozzie should have gotten a start in the first 4-6 games, maybe after Jimmy was pulled against Vancouver (even though Ozzie wasn't very good in relief). That's two.

After that, Jimmy heated up again, and the team was playing very well. No good reason to change anything then. Once Jimmy cooled off and we were in good shape for the playoffs, Ozzie did get another start. Might have been able to work two in there, but either way, if you look at the situation we were in and how Jimmy was playing when Ozzie missed his regular starts I just can't see how you can say it was really mismanaged; at least not to any great extent. Two or three extra starts for Ozzie wouldn't have changed anything, nor really lessened any risk.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

So take the most important factor... the results, and eliminate them so as to help your argument. Brilliant. The results are everything and the only thing that matters.

I don't think you understand the problem with using the one thing that Babcock didn't have to make his decision and use it to justify why he should have made that decision. Just think about that for a second.

The goal last season, as stated by JImmy Dev himself, was to make the playoffs. Babcock did that. Hence, he made the best decisions.

In hindsight, yes. But I never said that in hindsight it was a poor decision to make. Of course it worked out the best and I am completely happy with the fact that it happened, but I don't think putting all your eggs in one basket was the way to go. Go ahead and disagree with me and I will gladly discuss your reasons why you think that Babcock made the right choice, but you have to put it in the perspective of the coach making the decision. Babcock didn't know how Howard was going to do with all those games. Babcock didn't know how well Osgood would do without seeing too much time (which would be a reason why he would stick with Howard but has not been brought up by any of you). All Babcock knew was the team wasn't doing well in November, and with only 5 months (down to the wire eh?) to get back on track he needed to look at all the factors. Did he? I would think so considering he is the best coach in the NHL right now. Did he make the right decision based on those factors? Not in my opinion, no.

Just because you and a few others are butt hurt because Osgood sat doesn't automatically mean Babcock made bad decisions. Just ones that you don't agree with.

Not surprised you of all people would take pot shots at me for having an opinion. Name one post where I was "butt hurt" about Osgood riding the pine. I stated that at the time it was not the best situation when it came to all the factors involved. And I stated why, which you dodged like Patches ******* O'houlihan. Hmmm, interesting.

Let's use your "results are everything" logic:

Should we lambast Holland for signing Hossa just because of the results? No, because at the time it made the most sense for the team to take him. But unfortunately for some of you here the results are all that matter when looking into the decisions of the Red Wing's staff.

Perhaps if Yzerman does a better job than Holland at GM you guys are going to get on Illitch for not getting him to take the GM position? I mean, results are all that matters, right?

Edited July 25, 2010 by Doc Holliday

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

First off, I would like to thank you for taking the time out to discuss this in a reasonable matter with me.

I have trouble finding more than two extra starts Ozzie should have been given.

And considering how things unfolded in the scenario we were given it would be very hard to, yes. But at the same time I do not believe that Osgood should have been plugged in a few starts with the same variables in the equation. I would have first given him a shot in at least one of the three games prior to his start in Chicago (the 3-0 stinker). He had just come off a great win in Nashville, in which Babcock rewarded him with three consectutive trips to the bench to get him cold for a very talented division rival. That is where I think Babcock slipped up first, and I think his job would have been easier if he had started with there.

Though he was the backup by the start of December, he was still getting regular time until late in the month. Then Jimmy got really hot, and that plus the fact that the team wasn't in great position you can't really say it was a bad decision to skip one of two of Ozzie's regular starts. An NHL backup shouldn't suffer that much going 3 weeks without a start.

It was a factor of a few things which I discussed previously. Howard did have three very good games, but if Osgood was so weak, why not start him against Tampa? Even start him against Dallas and let Howie take the Chicago start if he is such a hot commodity.

Then Jimmy had a poor start, Ozzie came off the bench and was worse, so Jimmy still got the next start, but he did get a couple more games in after Jimmy cooled off. But Ozzie played poorly in those games, so he missed his next start. I would have given him one more before the Olympic break, after the LA game when Jimmy played poorly. That's one.

You'll have to be more specific with your timeline here. I'm having trouble following which specific games you are referring to.

After the Olympics, I thought Ozzie should have gotten a start in the first 4-6 games, maybe after Jimmy was pulled against Vancouver (even though Ozzie wasn't very good in relief). That's two.

Perhaps, but once again I wouldn't base it on the variables involved. Too many ifs or buts to assume something based on other starts that would be given to Osgood in the past.

After that, Jimmy heated up again, and the team was playing very well. No good reason to change anything then. Once Jimmy cooled off and we were in good shape for the playoffs, Ozzie did get another start. Might have been able to work two in there, but either way, if you look at the situation we were in and how Jimmy was playing when Ozzie missed his regular starts I just can't see how you can say it was really mismanaged; at least not to any great extent. Two or three extra starts for Ozzie wouldn't have changed anything, nor really lessened any risk.

Fair enough, and I respect your analysis of the season and the goaltending, though I disagree considering the statement I had after your first quote. Just seemed like things snowballed from there.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Doc Holliday

[Broken 16 381]

I don't think you understand the problem with using the one thing that Babcock didn't have to make his decision and use it to justify why he should have made that decision. Just think about that for a second.

In hindsight, yes. But I never said that in hindsight it was a poor decision to make. Of course it worked out the best and I am completely happy with the fact that it happened, but I don't think putting all your eggs in one basket was the way to go. Go ahead and disagree with me and I will gladly discuss your reasons why you think that Babcock made the right choice, but you have to put it in the perspective of the coach making the decision. Babcock didn't know how Howard was going to do with all those games. Babcock didn't know how well Osgood would do without seeing too much time (which would be a reason why he would stick with Howard but has not been brought up by any of you). All Babcock knew was the team wasn't doing well in November, and with only 5 months (down to the wire eh?) to get back on track he needed to look at all the factors. Did he? I would think so considering he is the best coach in the NHL right now. Did he make the right decision based on those factors? Not in my opinion, no.

Not surprised you of all people would take pot shots at me for having an opinion. Name one post where I was "butt hurt" about Osgood riding the pine. I stated that at the time it was not the best situation when it came to all the factors involved. And I stated why, which you dodged like Patrick ******* O'houlihan. Hmmm, interesting.

Let's use your "results are everything" logic:

Should we lambast Holland for signing Hossa just because of the results? No, because at the time it made the most sense for the team to take him. But unfortunately for some of you here the results are all that matter when looking into the decisions of the Red Wing's staff.

Perhaps if Yzerman does a better job than Holland at GM you guys are going to get on Illitch for not getting him to take the GM position? I mean, results are all that matters, right?

Ok... you aren't butthurt. Whatever. Lol.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Ok... you aren't butthurt. Whatever. Lol.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Doc Holliday

[Buppy 1,720]

First off, I would like to thank you for taking the time out to discuss this in a reasonable matter with me.

And considering how things unfolded in the scenario we were given it would be very hard to, yes. But at the same time I do not believe that Osgood should have been plugged in a few starts with the same variables in the equation. I would have first given him a shot in at least one of the three games prior to his start in Chicago (the 3-0 stinker). He had just come off a great win in Nashville, in which Babcock rewarded him with three consectutive trips to the bench to get him cold for a very talented division rival. That is where I think Babcock slipped up first, and I think his job would have been easier if he had started with there.

It was a factor of a few things which I discussed previously. Howard did have three very good games, but if Osgood was so weak, why not start him against Tampa? Even start him against Dallas and let Howie take the Chicago start if he is such a hot commodity.

You'll have to be more specific with your timeline here. I'm having trouble following which specific games you are referring to.

Perhaps, but once again I wouldn't base it on the variables involved. Too many ifs or buts to assume something based on other starts that would be given to Osgood in the past.

Fair enough, and I respect your analysis of the season and the goaltending, though I disagree considering the statement I had after your first quote. Just seemed like things snowballed from there.

I'm sure there's a few more starts Osgood could or should have been given and wouldn't have hurt. But at the same time, I don't think a backup missing a start or two should be a big deal.

The specific stretch I mean was from Dec. 23 - Jan. 17 when Jimmy started 12 in a row (right after the Chicago game). In the first 8 of those games, Jimmy allowed just 13 goals and had a save% of .953, and won 5 of them. In that situation, I see no problem in riding the hot hand. The next game was against the Islanders on Jan. 12th. Jimmy had a poor start, and was pulled about halfway through after giving up 3 goals on 20 shots. Osgood came in and gave up 3 more goals on just 11 shots. It had been over three weeks since he had played, so a bit of rust is forgiveable, and he could/should have started the next game, but again I don't see any real fault in going back to Jimmy.

After then, with just 30 minutes of game time in the past month, Ozzie probably shouldn't have started against Washington. He should have gone earlier against either Carolina or Dallas. That might be the biggest mistake I would lay on Babs. It's hard to say what might have been different otherwise, but that game seemed to really hurt Ozzie and Babs' confidence in him. Ozzie did get another 'regular' start a week later against Minnesota, but he didn't look good, and took his permanent bench spot after. Who knows how things might have gone if that little stretch had been done differently, but that's getting into guesswork. It's just as probable that nothing would have been different.

I liked Ozzie in the Chicago start, but I'd agree he could have been given one in between, like the TB game. I would have wanted Ozzie against Chicago regardless though. It was a back-back, Ozzie's last start was solid, and he was great against Chicago early in the year. He wasn't bad in the Chicago game either, though if memory serves he did let in a weak one, maybe even two, early on. But either way...

In a nutshell, I'd probably agree that things could have been handled a little better, just not to such a degree that I think it warrants any real criticism. That's assuming that no permanent damage was done in the relationship between Ozzie and Babs, nor Ozzie's confidence. But I don't think either is the case.

[NomadFromKazoo 42]

And considering how things unfolded in the scenario we were given it would be very hard to, yes. But at the same time I do not believe that Osgood should have been plugged in a few starts with the same variables in the equation

What is the problem you're trying to solve exactly? Howard did is part in getting us to the playoffs and to 100 points and to the second round and while he didn't steal the series clearly isn't the reason we lost to the Sharks. He paid is dues for sure in the minors and getting NHL game experience. He was young and inexperienced, now he's young and less inexperienced. It would have been a lot safer for Babcock to play Ozzie and try to keep the streaks alive so he didn't get criticized for losing those, but he thought Howard was ready and rode him as far as he could go...and it worked. I'm not seeing an issue.

[Broken 16 381]

What is the problem you're trying to solve exactly? Howard did is part in getting us to the playoffs and to 100 points and to the second round and while he didn't steal the series clearly isn't the reason we lost to the Sharks. He paid is dues for sure in the minors and getting NHL game experience. He was young and inexperienced, now he's young and less inexperienced. It would have been a lot safer for Babcock to play Ozzie and try to keep the streaks alive so he didn't get criticized for losing those, but he thought Howard was ready and rode him as far as he could go...and it worked. I'm not seeing an issue.

You'll get used to Doc. He just loves to argue for the sake of arguing. He can find something to argue about in the most innocuous of statements. It's fun to indulge him once in a while. He'll use pictures and quotes in an attempt to confuse you, it's all good clean fun.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Broken 16

[titanium2 867]

You'll get used to Doc. He just loves to argue for the sake of arguing. He can find something to argue about in the most innocuous of statements.

A lot of users on LGW are like that. Don't know if that's a good or bad thing.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

What is the problem you're trying to solve exactly? Howard did is part in getting us to the playoffs and to 100 points and to the second round and while he didn't steal the series clearly isn't the reason we lost to the Sharks. He paid is dues for sure in the minors and getting NHL game experience. He was young and inexperienced, now he's young and less inexperienced. It would have been a lot safer for Babcock to play Ozzie and try to keep the streaks alive so he didn't get criticized for losing those, but he thought Howard was ready and rode him as far as he could go...and it worked. I'm not seeing an issue.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum.

You'll get used to Doc. He just loves to argue for the sake of arguing. He can find something to argue about in the most innocuous of statements. It's fun to indulge him once in a while. He'll use pictures and quotes in an attempt to confuse you, it's all good clean fun.

Not my fault you would rather attack me than actually attempt to discuss the issue. I didn't even start the discussion about Babcock and Osgood, I simply participated in it.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Doc Holliday

[NomadFromKazoo 42]

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum

Being on a discussion forum means no one can question what your point is? Hmm...

Not my fault you would rather attack me than actually attempt to discuss the issue. I didn't even start the discussion about Babcock and Osgood, I simply participated in it.

I tried to discuss your issue and your reply was that it's a "discussion forum." Whether or not he's discussing the issue, you aren't either.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Being on a discussion forum means no one can question what your point is? Hmm...

I made my point based on how the conversation unfolded. I didn't bring it up in this thread, so I don't see why you berate me of all people for talking about it.

Can we not discuss the decision making of our team's staff if we think it wasn't the right move at the time?

I tried to discuss your issue and your reply was that it's a "discussion forum." Whether or not he's discussing the issue, you aren't either.

That wasn't directed at you.

[NomadFromKazoo 42]

I made my point based on how the conversation unfolded. I didn't bring it up in this thread, so I don't see why you berate me of all people for talking about it.

Can we not discuss the decision making of our team's staff if we think it wasn't the right move at the time?

You're going to have to help me here, Doc. How is my asking you why you think it "wasn't the right move" either berating you or somehow infringing on your right to discuss an issue on a message board? Why someone is making the argument they are seems in fact to me to be both in the letter and spirit of the point of message boards. What was the "problem" with Howard playing all the time? Babcock thought it was the right move and it worked out. Ozzie's near retirement, Howard needs the experience. We got into the playoffs, won a round, lost a round to a great team by a whisker. What was the problem? I'm not seeing how that's somehow out of bounds to ask on a message board.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

You're going to have to help me here, Doc. How is my asking you why you think it "wasn't the right move" either berating you or somehow infringing on your right to discuss an issue on a message board? Why someone is making the argument they are seems in fact to me to be both in the letter and spirit of the point of message boards. What was the "problem" with Howard playing all the time? Babcock thought it was the right move and it worked out. Ozzie's near retirement, Howard needs the experience. We got into the playoffs, won a round, lost a round to a great team by a whisker. What was the problem? I'm not seeing how that's somehow out of bounds to ask on a message board.

My qualm was you seeming to ask WHY I was asking the question about his decision in the first place, simply based on the fact that the results ended up in Detroit's favor. It came off as a "since it worked out why question it at all?"

I do not think at the time it made sense, and I stated numerous times why. Did it work out as good as it could have? Yes. Does that mean that the right decision was made at the time? Not from my perspective.

[NomadFromKazoo 42]

My qualm was you seeming to ask WHY I was asking the question about his decision in the first place, simply based on the fact that the results ended up in Detroit's favor. It came off as a "since it worked out why question it at all?"

Actually I argued Howard needed the experience and has been brought along to be put in this position and our head coach thought he was ready, went for it, and he was right. You're arguing he was wrong, even though he was in fact right. Howard working out wasn't a random event, it was the assessment of our head coach. Our head coach was right, that's not just a lucky occurrence.

I do not think at the time it made sense, and I stated numerous times why. Did it work out as good as it could have? Yes. Does that mean that the right decision was made at the time? Not from my perspective.

Well, the most specific statement I saw is we are putting our eggs in one basket. Realistically when teams goalie's flop they're usually toast in the playoffs and you win by having your guy ready, not having your backup guy ready. Howard needed the experience and is a young guy. Babcock was obviously focusing on preparing him, it was the right call. To get Ozzie ready as well was completely impractical. A couple of starts would have made little difference and if Howard flopped we'd already be in a deep hole. So what if he had a couple more starts? No way we do that if Babcock thinks Howard needs the starts. I thought you had to be looking for more then that, but if you're saying that's as deep as your argument went, if Howard flopped Ozzie wasn't ready, then sure, but you didn't solve that problem either.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Actually I argued Howard needed the experience and has been brought along to be put in this position and our head coach thought he was ready, went for it, and he was right. You're arguing he was wrong, even though he was in fact right. Howard working out wasn't a random event, it was the assessment of our head coach. Our head coach was right, that's not just a lucky occurrence.

I didn't say it was random, but I said that putting Detroit's playoff hopes on giving your rookie goaltender every game and keeping your backup completely cold was incredibly risky.

Well, the most specific statement I saw is we are putting our eggs in one basket. Realistically when teams goalie's flop they're usually toast in the playoffs and you win by having your guy ready, not having your backup guy ready.

I'm not talking playoffs.

Howard needed the experience and is a young guy.

Yes.

Babcock was obviously focusing on preparing him, it was the right call.

That is incorrect, as Babcock stated numerous times his goal was to make the playoffs, which was what his decision was based on.

To get Ozzie ready as well was completely impractical.

That wasn't what I said at all.

A couple of starts would have made little difference and if Howard flopped we'd already be in a deep hole. So what if he had a couple more starts? No way we do that if Babcock thinks Howard needs the starts. I thought you had to be looking for more then that, but if you're saying that's as deep as your argument went, if Howard flopped Ozzie wasn't ready, then sure, but you didn't solve that problem either.

I'm not talking playoffs. I'm talking if Howard simply was on a hot streak, got cold and then we had nothing else to go for. Howard was not an established goaltender and did not impress until this year. It is a huge gamble to give him Marty Brodeur type playing time in his first real season when that didn't need to be the case.

I think you aren't grasping my position correctly, here.

[NomadFromKazoo 42]

I'm not talking playoffs. I'm talking if Howard simply was on a hot streak, got cold and then we had nothing else to go for. Howard was not an established goaltender and did not impress until this year. It is a huge gamble to give him Marty Brodeur type playing time in his first real season when that didn't need to be the case.

I think you aren't grasping my position correctly, here.

OK, but I don't see how it mattered that much between Ozzie playing a few games and barely playing at all in terms of Ozzie really being ready to play. With huge chunks of our team out huge chunks of the season we were in playoff win now or go home mode anyway. If Howard had gone cold and we lost even more games, even Ozzie playing a little was going to have a tough time making the playoffs anyway. Our eggs were really in the Howard basket at that point anyway.

When we had two vets, like Hasek and Ozzie, what you're saying makes perfect sense. But with Howard it really made sense to just play him and sink or swim rather then taking starts away so there is the remotest of chances that at that point Ozzie could pull it out.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

OK, but I don't see how it mattered that much between Ozzie playing a few games and barely playing at all in terms of Ozzie really being ready to play. With huge chunks of our team out huge chunks of the season we were in playoff win now or go home mode anyway. If Howard had gone cold and we lost even more games, even Ozzie playing a little was going to have a tough time making the playoffs anyway. Our eggs were really in the Howard basket at that point anyway.

When we had two vets, like Hasek and Ozzie, what you're saying makes perfect sense. But with Howard it really made sense to just play him and sink or swim rather then taking starts away so there is the remotest of chances that at that point Ozzie could pull it out.

My main gripe was with how Babcock started things, which progressively caused him to keep Osgood on the pine and keep Howard in net.

Basically I think he caused the problem to snowball on himself. Would a few starts here and there make a big difference? Not likely, no. But I believe that Osgood should have at least had a start between his win in Nashville and his loss in Chicago. And I think that if Osgood really wasn't as up to snuff as Babcock thought, then Howard should have been given the away start against Chicago and Osgood the Dallas and Chicago home start.

[NomadFromKazoo 42]

Basically I think he caused the problem to snowball on himself

I still don't see there was a "problem" at all

And I think that if Osgood really wasn't as up to snuff as Babcock thought, then Howard should have been given the away start against Chicago and Osgood the Dallas and Chicago home start.

I don't see any evidence Babcock thought Ozzie "wasn't up to snuff." Howard needed the work and was playing well. He's young and could handle the load and needed to keep gaining experience. We brought Howard along plenty slowly, it's his time now. Ozzie's sun is setting. That fully explains everything that happened.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

I still don't see there was a "problem" at all

This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't see any evidence Babcock thought Ozzie "wasn't up to snuff." Howard needed the work and was playing well. He's young and could handle the load and needed to keep gaining experience. We brought Howard along plenty slowly, it's his time now. Ozzie's sun is setting. That fully explains everything that happened.

Once again, agree to disagree.